IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1842 of 2008()
1. P.V.ABDUL SALAM, PROPRIETOR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INDIAN PRIVATE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.R.PADMARAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1842 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October 2008
O R D E R
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the
petitioner to quash an F.I.R filed alleging commission of the
offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. The crime
has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed
before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is complete. The final
report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate and the matter is pending before the learned
Magistrate as C.C.No.83/2007 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Palakkad. The final report having already been filed,
I am satisfied that the prayer for quashing the F.I.R has lost its
relevance. The petitioner’s prayer for premature termination of
proceedings must now be urged before the learned Magistrate.
In a prosecution for a warrant offence, cognizance in which has
been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police,
premature termination of proceedings can be claimed under
Section 239 Cr.P.C by discharge. I am not satisfied that the
Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 2
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be invoked in the
facts and circumstances of this case. Premature termination of
proceedings must ordinarily be claimed under the ordinary
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding
the fact that this court has jurisdiction in an exceptional case
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring about such premature
termination, notwithstanding the availability of such ordinary
remedy, I do not find any circumstances justifying the invocation
of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in this case now. I am
satisfied that this Crl.M.C can, in these circumstances, be
dismissed with appropriate observations.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
the personal appearance of the petitioner were insisted to
facilitate the claim of discharge, that would cause great hardship
and inconvenience to the petitioner. I am satisfied that
appropriate directions can be issued.
3. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is dismissed.
b) I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at
liberty to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim
premature termination by discharge.
Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 3
c) Until a decision is taken on the claim for premature
termination of proceedings by discharge, if the petitioner is
represented by counsel, the personal presence of the petitioner
shall not be insisted and he shall be permitted to advance such
plea through his counsel. Expeditious order shall be passed on
such plea for discharge when raised.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.1842/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008
